When my son, a pre-teen at the time went to Spain with me, things were quite different: A small town that even had stores targeting kids, places to sit everywhere, things to see, other people walking too. He could even go to the beach and be fine, as there's lifeguards. By the second week of the summer, you'd see group of new friends hanging out with no parents, just going back home for meals and sleep.

Build environments where children can be independent, and they might even want to be. But it's amazing how much modern-ish suburbia just has no place for you to even exist without a car.

And I consider myself relatively lucky in that part of the US where I live, despite being in a relatively rural region, is remarkably walkable. As opposed to most places in the US, which are effectively micro islands when it comes to getting anywhere on foot.

Then lets also add on how loitering is treated as such a great offense. That traditional areas for young adults to just "hang" (cafe, bowling alley, arcade) have increasingly priced them out. That a teenager hanging out on their own is often suspected to be "up to something"

In a time before the cell phone, we apparently let kids wander unsupervised more than we do in an era where they can get a hold of their parents at almost any time? It's ludicrous.

My 5 year old bikes to school, accompanied by an adult. It’s a bit more than half a mile away from the house.

I’d like to tell him he can do this on his own next year, but there’s a single intersection he has to cross that makes this difficult.

I’m not worried about him getting lost, abducted by a stranger or any host of movie plot scenarios. I’m worried about vehicles. Specifically pickup trucks and SUVs.

40 years ago a 5 or 6 year old mostly had to contend with sedans with hoods lower than 30 inches. Today there are large numbers of vehicles twice that high, where even an adult can’t look the driver in the eye at close distances.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says:

  Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front ends angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44 percent more likely to cause fatalities.

I’ll probably let him bike alone anyway. But it’s a different equation because of the cars.

Damn, I'm glad I got to grow up then.

We joke about having a main child and an emergency backup child, but deep down it's not a joke, it changes our behavior.

Was there a measure of danger to allowing a 12 year old that much freedom? Sure, probably. But to illustrate something that lines up perfectly with TFA... the worst thing that ever happened to me or any of my friends during this time, was when me and my then best friend were riding our bikes on the road between our homes, and he was struck by a car.

Were we ever worried about being kidnapped, or any of that crap? Hell no. That's not to say it couldn't have happened, but that wasn't on anybody's minds back then (I'm talking approx 1984 - 1990 or so).

That said, if I were a parent today, I think I'd be somewhat scared to give my kids the same amount of freedom I had. Which makes me a hypocrite I guess? Maybe I've bought into too much of the prevailing media narrative stuff myself.

But the article doesn't consider whether restricting children's wanderings is the REASON it is so much safer for children now.

"We have so many fire-safety rules in the building codes in Seattle. But get this: we haven't had any major fires since 1889! It's obvious we don't need these rules!"

It's true there is a cost to restricting children. But let's be a bit more realistic about the tradeoffs.

One correlation with "safetyism" this article doesn't mention: the rise of the two income household (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/04/08/after-d... for the US; the UK appears to be similar.) In reality when we kids were running wild about the town, someone was watching us out their windows. If we got into (or more likely caused :) ) a problem, adults, usually a housewife, would show up quickly from somewhere. Even when we were off in the woods there was a sense that we could find a house where a grown-up would help us if needed (like if some kid's little brother ruptured his spleen on a dare, which actually happened.)

Nobody would call Child Protective Services - you knew it was little Billy who threw that rock that hit Jimmy, so-and-so's kid. You would tell Billy's dad, who would make sure he didn't ever do _that_ again, and that would be the end of it. Now I imagine police and lawyers would be involved. It seems we don't have the informal social connections any more, which were largely driven by someone just being around.

The above link BTW shows that "only" 50% of mom's were stay-at-home in the 1970's. In my specific time and place, many of the moms who did work outside the home had jobs that revolved around the school schedule (i.e., working at the school, or some work schedule that allowed them to be home when the kids were not in school.) The ones with full time jobs like my single mother, supporting three kids through full-time work, were a rarity back then. Maybe my brothers and I had excessive freedom because there simply wasn't anyone to watch over us - fortunately we all turned out more or less OK :)

Could it be possible that we're confusing cause and effect here?

It's slightly taboo, but I think people protect their kids more now because they are more precious to the parents. The average number of children per mother has plunged in the last 200 years, and investment required in them per child to get them to child-bearing capability is much higher also. Child mortality has dropped like a stone, so any harm coming to children is much less tolerable.

Parents have so much invested in their children - and so few of them to "spare" - that they get far more protection than before.

Modern establishments (businesses/governments) work by making people afraid. It is truly, the age of fear.

Let me quote M.I.B

>There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!

At some point we figured that there is good money to be made by making the people perpetually aware of how they or their loved one are going to die 24x7!

I grew up in the late 80s / early to mid 90s. We were allowed the roam around until dark. But that was also a more natural thing to do, as there weren't a whole lot of things to do inside (we had to ask very nicely if we could stay inside to play).

But as I got into my teens, indoor activities became more accessible. Everyone had a computer, the internet became a thing, you suddenly had more options than to just bike around or play. As I got into my young adult years, I noticed that team sports and things like that had dropped off significantly where I came from. Even in my small rural town we'd have 3-4 soccer teams in my age group...10 years later, they could barely string together a single team of teens to play for our town team. Many kids had simply lost interest, and were occupied with other things.

This is the step that otherwise smart people fail at.

"We were afraid of danger X so we did Y to prevent it and turns out it was a waste because not only did X not get worse, it got better! To heck with Y!"

And don't consider, maybe, things got better for that reason?

This is "only sick people take medicine" logic.

If you're tempted down this line of thinking you need to consider: If nothing had changed or they got worse, would that have been the expected results? What then would be the expected outcome?

Comparative analysis at a minimum, not just to other societies with different norms but attempting at least to find pockets that didn't change as much or as quickly, what happened there and in other sub populations where factors varied.

Otherwise you're just someone complaining how things used to be different, better in any way that fits a narrative that makes you feel comfortable or righteous or whatever.

For me growing up in 2000's suburbia, the closest kids around my age that I knew of were about one mile and major road crossing away, but to get to a friend it could be a lot more. I think kids out in a group doesn't feel like a safety concern to most people even now, but if they have to travel 5+ miles solo just to meet up with one other person, that's where the issue might lie.

But I wonder if part of why people worried less in earlier generations is that we were so close to the time where childhood actually was dangerous: 100 years ago in the US, 20% of kids didn't live to adulthood (mostly because of diseases we can now prevent). I wonder if that had some cultural impact on perception of relative dangers.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/08/kids-smart...

As a parent of a 9 year old I often find myself keeping them on a short leash and need to consciously give them the freedom they crave. Reading these articles help me be more aware and courageous.

- Less families with kids the same age in suburban neighborhoods

- Less community between neighbors

- More on demand entertainment inside the house

Basically it's more that there is less to do outside and more to do inside. Parents just want their kids to busy themselves, and inside is easier than outside now.

Regarding leaving the front yard, there are so many communities/streets with lots of interdictions like prohibition to play with a ball, this is ridiculous. Yes kids are noisy, I know I have a small football field next to my office where kids still hang out after school and play until way past sunset. They are still less noisy than traffic and they bring life to otherwise boring neighborhoods.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/marc-klaas-close-foundation-3-deca...

Research in the late nineties revealed the actual percentage was about 9% and 10%.*

Are we over-reacting maybe but maybe not.

* I vaguely recall that in an episode of PsychologyInSeattle, a guest that was doing research into food addiction back then realized that over 40% of their patients had experienced some sort of sexual abuse when they were a child, this led them to expand their research into that subject and discover the full extent of the issue. I think the research they did put the figure for the general population at 16% but take these numbers with a grain of salt it's been a while since I listened to it.

My 14 year old has gotten into mountain biking so he's on his bike a lot. It's funny how proud boys are of scrapes and bruises. My 16 year old has taken up skateboarding which warms my heart as an ex-skater so he's been doing that more and more. Plus, the 16 year old has a driver's license now so he can get to a skatepark or hang out with friends without having to coordinate with me or his mom very much.

We raised out kids in an urban setting, Dallas proper. If i had to do it over I would have raised them in a suburb. There whole setup in the northern suburbs of DFW are just better for families. The public schools are acceptable, the parks are better, no gunshots every night, no vagrants shooting up or shitting on the sidewalk, more family oriented businesses the list goes on.

My best friend lived in a sort of suburb (still very rural) but we'd spend all day biking around, meeting other kids, getting up to trouble, and making grand adventures to the store to buy mountain dew. This was all the way up until high school. After 14 I was too busy with school and sports in the academic year to do anything else, and in the summer I worked at a camp.

I talked to my mom about this recently and she said that 'kids can't just wander around anymore it's unsafe' and I'd argue that a child with a smart phone that constantly pings their location is a million times safer than whatever the hell we were doing.

I think the challenge is that parents are more anxious and video games and social media are way more convenient than anything outside the house, making a perfect storm. I don't remember leaving the house as much as a kid because there was that much to do outside, but rather we had exhausted all the activities at home. I feel like now you have unlimited options for entertainment at home so why bother, especially if your parents would rather you be at home anyways.

"We live in a culture of safetyism. And it’s largely an English speaking phenomenon."

If you look at page 14 of this:

https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files...

its far from clear.

I am also very dubious of the findings. The very low level of mobility in Sri Lanka contradicts what I see - especially relative to England. Most families do not have cars, for example. I suspect a bias to Anglophone affluent urban families.

> For example, in Finland, the majority of 7 year olds are routinely allowed to walk or bike alone. And by 8, the majority of kids cross main roads, commute to school, and navigate their neighborhoods unaccompanied.

However, I feel the need to push back against this small addition to the main point:

> It's providing trigger warnings, so that people can walk out instead of face being uncomfortable in the classroom.

The article is about parents and parenting-culture _restricting_ a child's freedom, especially during important developmental stages.

Trigger warnings in a college classroom are for adults to casually and quickly let other adults know when content might trigger their PTSD (not simply discomfort) so they can make an informed decision about attending a lecture or not, given that it simply might not be worth their time if they won't be able to listen and learn in a clear-minded state. There are no restrictions to anyone's ability to make these decisions, simply a bit more information being provided up front to allow one to do so.

It feels rare to find authors online who both see the danger of raising a generation of children who are never taught that they are allowed to take care of themselves, but who also recognize the value of being kind enough to warn people when you are going to discuss sensitive topics in a lecture, harming nobody in the process.

edit: In fact, thinking a bit more about it, one of the large points the author makes is that consuming either traditional or social media, which is biased towards showing us negative content related to crime, violence, tragedy, etc, will prime parents to over-protect their children. And in the same article, claims that being warned about content that might provoke an intense emotional reaction is an overstep.

Maybe if these parents were also warned that "hey, I know you're just trying to catch up to the news, but reading about a child abduction 2 states over is actually just going to spike your cortisol and make you a worse parent", it would help a generation of parents self-select the media they consume, and help them avoid this trend?

To be a devil's advocate - maybe lower frequency of crimes against children is a result of that red tape? Or maybe not. I don't know.

Nothing bad ever happened to me, and most people were actually quite kind and helpful to a 14 year old kid asking for help and directions. That sense of confidence in myself - that I could figure out how to pretty much do anything - has stuck with me in a way that a lot of my friends who grew up in sanitized suburban neighborhoods just don't have.

Kids really don't know what they're missing.

This seems outrageously high. The study says it is an "estimate". I'm willing to be their methods or assumption are seriously flawed. Would be curious if someone has looked into it.

Yet a lot of the comments here suggest that kids would have more independence if cities were safer (particularly from cars).

IMHO, the answer is to improve safety by teaching children how to navigate dangers. Teach children how to cross the road; teach children to be aware of distracted drivers; teach children about situations to avoid (e.g., being in a blind spot).

Waiting for cities to be sanitized theme parks before letting kids out of the house is how we got into this mess.

I was 7 years old

My biggest fear for my kid out in the world is not abduction, but injury or death by automobile.

I live in a low density, large neighborhood where kids 8-17 are out roaming all the time, the older half heading to adjacent shops and other neighborhoods. I recognize and know who most are and their parents. The common trend I see is a purposeful limiting of screen time.

TV interview with parents taking their little kids to see Alien (1979):

https://x.com/TheCinesthetic/status/2058998742506954766

https://xcancel.com/TheCinesthetic/status/205899874250695476...

After checking the Wikipedia page, I realized that I was only 10 or 11 at the time. Somehow I remembered it as having been older – high school age.

However, I'm GenX and having all my friends and I roam the neighborhood from the time we got out of school until our parents got home from work with no supervision seems perfectly normal.

"Come home when the street lights come on" and television PSAs asking "It's nine o'clock, do you know where your children are?" were the norm in the 70's.

I live in an average California suburb. Average priced homes, relatively quiet street, not really any disorder or even appearance of disorder. When I let my kids play in the front yard - minding themselves - neighbors call the cops. I've written about this before, and it's not simply a matter of choosing to let your own kids have more freedom.

There are simply no kids outside anymore so if yours are, they stand out. Kids playing outside is now so outside the norm and neighbors on edge that they will call the police. The police will not ignore it, and you or your kids will have to contend with a police encounter. This has the effect of making parents perform a calculus every time their kids ask to play outside.

If there's a way to get neighbors to feel that kids playing in yards is normal, I'm all ears.

Pedophiles.

They were always there, even inside of families and churches. Just underreported.

It's the context around you that is changing. Also, the digital divide is so strong that many old people and village folks see anything related to technology or complex online processes as alien things that they can't dare to deal with. They are basically living in the non-digital islands. The logins, MFA, password recovery, OTP, finding the correct web portal, filling in the right information - it's a nightmare for a common human.

Well, we stopped letting kids wander -- certainly that has an impact on the statistics.

It's a garbage world containing many garbage people and I think the "good old days" where you could just send your kid out in the morning and only see them at dinner never existed in the first place. It's just that predators can only prey on so many at once...

They're probably a lot safer in big numbers though, like if you had a group of 4 kids, each with cameras ready to film a potential attacker you could maybe give them ways in which they can protect themselves without necessarily needing adult supervision.

It's gonna be a hard problem to solve when I'll be a dad.

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Enough!

What? A child doing something without adult supervision? Next thing you know they'll start thinking for themselves, asking uncomfortable questions, or looking for forbidden books in the library. Better call the cops and accuse them of vandalism or something.

I call this "Shitarticlism" and it includes OP's article and also a bunch of clickbait I read. And Microsoft Learn.

If I work from home I see tons of unaccompanied kids going to school in the morning. I live in what is statistically the most crime ridden area in my city. My toddler has a drive for independence that will probably lead to him doing this himself in a few short years just need to impress road safety on him a bit more.

It's been spoken about a lot of times with philosophies such as 15-minute cities and there has been progress in Europe with promoting active travel and banning some cars from city centres. However, there's a lot of entrenched money and power that push for ever increasing numbers of cars and that's why the discussion ends up polarised.

Personally, I like Cory Doctorow's phrasing of "geometry hates cars". When places are designed for cars, more room is required for attempting to ease congestion (induced demand makes this futile) and parking, but facilities can be moved further apart as people are using cars to get there. That leads to more cars being used, which leads to more congestion, which leads to more space being allocated, which leads to facilities being spaced further apart. Rinse and repeat until cars are the only mode of transport which can be used.

I think adults / elderly completely lack perspective and compassion for kids. Berating them for using iPads, berating them for playing outside.

In reality there aren’t that many kids out socializing, and not many avenues for them to be free and be themselves. They are constantly monitored directly via their phones and indirectly via the E-Stasi .

When I was a kid in the 80s/90s there were kids just everywhere: parks, streets, malls , playgrounds, school facilities. We had to sneak into abandoned yards to find our own space.

Now adults are whining about a few kids roaming around being kids.

There's also one metric that I've heard that gives a lot of parents pause: while being out and about in the world is generally safer than ever in the US from a social standpoint, it's more dangerous than ever to be a pedestrian.

In general there is excessive alarmism, and the internet makes it possible.

>But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

>"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

>https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-dive...

The people in my life who consume conservative media are afraid. They all say the world is so different now. It is. It's safer.

The people in my life who don't consume conservative media aren't so afraid...

Not leaving the front yard is unthinkable in many countries outside the US.

So we should go back to the 'good old days' and not report the crime? I guess ignorance is bliss. If there is more crime being reported in an area, that's a signal that it's more dangerous, and you should take precautions.

"Stranger abductions, the thing every parent imagines when they hesitate to let a 10-year-old walk to a friend’s house, were rare in 1985 and are rarer today."

It's the same with plane crashes. The problem is that it only has to happen one time for total devastation.

There are now grooming gangs in countries like the UK to worry about (which wasn't the case in the 80s and 90s). The Internet has made it much easier for predators to organize, share information, and get to your kids.

When I was 11, I was around people doing drugs, smoking, drinking, and lighting illegal fireworks off (nearly blew my fingers off a few times), all without my parents knowing.

The dangers were always there. Society just chose to ignore them in the those days.

"Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans."

Why limit this to comments only? In this case the conversation was literally started by an AI.

At least require people to label submissions as AI-generated and then give users a way to filter that shit out. I don't come to HN to read AI slop.

Ppl are so stupid, they need online courses for locating their wiener when peeing outside their regular zone...

So basically the main change affected already the childhood of, what? 85% of the average HN reader, at least if they are from England. What are we talking about then?

Stuff like training wheels, bike helmets when you are just doing leisure rides. Don't get me started with bike helmets, people wear them and do risker things, drivers drive less careful around them, and you get a false sense of superiority instead of being more careful. If you're on the road/off roading, sure, but now you can get fined in some place for not wearing is one small example of safetyism taking over.